Advertisement

May 19, 2013

Whirlpool Settles EEOC Race and Sexual Harassment Lawsuit for One Million Dollars

Company Drops Appeal of Lower Court’s Judgment, Ends Six Years of Litigation

NASHVILLE – Whirlpool Corporation agreed to drop its appeal of a race and sex harassment judgment for over one million dollars and resolve the case with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Plaintiff-Intervenor, the federal agency announced today. The settlement comes almost six years to the day after the EEOC’s Memphis District Office first filed suit on June 9, 2006.

The EEOC’s lawsuit (Civil Action No. 3:06-0593 filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee) had charged that Whirlpool violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it did nothing to stop a white male co-worker at a Whirlpool plant in LaVergne, Tenn., from harassing an African-American female employee because of her race and sex. The abuse lasted for two months and escalated when the co-worker physically assaulted the black employee and inflicted serious permanent injuries.

During a four-day bench trial, the court heard evidence that the employee repeatedly reported offensive verbal conduct and gestures by the co-worker to Whirlpool management before she was violently assaulted, without any corrective action by the company. The trial also established that the employee suffered devastating permanent mental injuries that will prevent her from working again as a result of the assault.

At the conclusion of the bench trial, Judge John T. Nixon entered a final judgment and awarded the employee a total of $1,073,261 in back pay, front pay and compensatory damages on December 21, 2009. Whirlpool filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment on January 15, 2010 which the district court denied on March 31, 2011.

On April 26, 2011, Whirlpool appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The company withdrew its appeal on June 11, 2012 and agreed settle the case with the EEOC and plaintiff-intervener for $1 million and court costs. The plant where the discrimination occurred had closed during the litigation period.

“Employers have a responsibility to address and remedy race and sex harassment in the workplace,” said P. David Lopez, EEOC General Counsel. “The EEOC stands ready to vigorously prosecute violations of the law through trial if necessary. We are pleased that the parties were finally able to bring this litigation to a close.”

Commission Attorneys Corbett L. Anderson and Lorraine C. Davis represented the EEOC during the appeal.

Attorneys Helen Rogers of Nashville and Andy Allman of Hendersonville, Tennessee intervened in the case and represented the plaintiff-intervener for the trial and appeal.

According to its web site, Whirlpool Corporation, with world headquarters in Benton    Harbor, Mich., “is the world’s leading manufacturer and marketer of major home appliances, with annual sales of approximately $19 billion in 2011, 68,000 employees, and 66 manufacturing and technology research centers around the world.”

© Copyright 2012 - U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

About the Author

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

Most employers with at least 15...

800-669-4000

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.